I'm not completely sure what you meant, John. Did you mean to say that it's an insane image and is ridiculous, or were you questioning how such an image could be offensive?

Because it IS offensive. It depicts a parody image of stereotypical Native Americans used to sell a ridiculous product in a humiliating context. What is NOT offensive about it?

Think: if you had an old-timey "black-faced" image on the wrapper and sold it as "Negro Nectar," people wouldn't hesitate to call it offensive. If you had a white face on it and called it "Cracker Cranberry," it would also be offensive.

Why (if I'm reading your question right) is Injun Orange NOT offensive? Have you asked any Native Americans if they find this offensive and why or why not? I did, here at the University of Florida, and the answers I received were pretty clear: it is offensive because it degrades Native Americans and their culture into a marketing ploy for Pillsbury products.

There's a fine line between comedy and racism, and it requires more care and study than simple opinion.

I'll ask one of my native american friends if he's offended: "Joe, are you offended by a happy generic face with an Indian headress selling Koolaid?"

I would actually love to have a caricature of a marauding Cossack on a Cranberry Juice packet. No one ever caricatures my roots and traditional native garb and strange marital practices, and I'm more offended that I'm left out!

Before today I had a high opinion of Native Americans. Today, thanks to the discovery of this Kool-Aid package, I see them all as pathetic injun sell-outs to the Man. My entire worldview is now shattered.

Nobody is parodied or ridiculed more than the white male. Somehow, as a white male, I wake up every day and manage to carry on.

Nothing would make me feel weaker as a human being than to have others speak up for me when they think I can't do it for myself.

Matt... I suggest you grow a thicker skin than the callous on your right palm, sir.

I think by removing the product branding and the obviously off-colour Injun Orange tag, John's example becomes less contentious. By looking solely at the design of the character we see it as a an appealing caricature of a Native North American. The elements of the design communicate to us what we're looking at. It really is a great design but the problem lies with what will always be taken as corporate exploitation. Remove the product labelling and there is nothing to be offended about. Even Matt's comments surrounded the product, not the character design.

How can that be considered offensive? It doesn't imply anything negative about Native Americans. It's just a funny drawing. And what's the big deal about black caricatures. They just exaggerate features that are predominant in black people e.g. big lips etc..

To get a full sense of the offensive nature of the caricature (and indeed, most of the characters invented for that mid 1960s campaign), one needs to get a sense of the full campaign. Fortunately, this is extremely easy to find: The following comes from a blog called "Way Out Junk":

You will read there that Injin Orange and Chinese Cherry were replaced by less offensive characters in later versions of the campaign, but all the characters were voiced by veteran voice actor Paul Frees, who... unfortunately... did a variety of stereotype voices which today we rightly consider disgusting.

Being both German AND white, I'm not allowed to be offended by anything.

The whole "Injun Orange" drawing itself isn't offensive, its actually kind of cute. But the context given with what its meant for, I guess it could be construed as offensive to Native American Indians. I mean wouldn't it be considered harmless unless someone stomped their foot about it? I never really heard anyone going "HAHA!! It's true! those Injuns sure are orange!" for someone to make a big deal over it.... Or who in their right mind would say something like that?

You said it Matt, Go home and study. People full of prejudices like you Can not have an objective glance of the reality.The human laughs with the human, always does, we are self-critical, the discrimination lies in the criterion with which you approach this self-criticism.Uhm, my english sucks... i am from Argentina, i am a fackin latinlover.

Actually, that's probably a better term than the one we use in Canada and my university: "first peoples" That one doesn't even make sense, it impies that they were human before anyone else. Then again, every modern history class is about showing the evils of the white man. My 50% european side is offended!

My 50% INDIAN is offended that liberal white people love to treat minorities like faberge eggs. Get off your high horse.

That great old packaging's made me thirsty, I think I'll go consume some sugar water and red dye 40, and I'll wash that down with some fritos.

It isn't the caricature I find offensive... it isn't doing any harm. What I find offensive are people (like Mike) who tell American Indians that they have no right to be offended.

Take a look at the big-lipped watermelon-loving black kids dancing in front of a cotton field in Betty Boop's Making Stars. I don't find that offensive at all. But most of us probably wouldn't bat an eye at someone who DID find it offensive.

I don't want to be offended by "Injun Orange," but I feel like I have to be, because American Indians never got a civil rights movement of their own.

And yes, John, "Injun" is offensive in the same way "nigger" isn't just a mispronunciation of "Negro."

Yeah, I got a little blood in me, too, but that don't mean I grew up on the Rez or anything. Still, I can't see how anyone could be honestly offended by the drawing. As a kid I drank this stuff all the time (when the folks would let me) and I just thought it was...well...fun! Fun drawings. Fun commercials. Fun flavors! I never thought they flavors represented ANY real person. Didn't they have one called Chinese Cherry as well? I think that got changed to Choo-choo Cherry or some such crap. It seemed just as much fun with a different name. A rose by any other name...

Everyone is so freakin' sensitive to the slightest hint of anything that might be perceived as derogatory. When did it become unacceptable to poke a little fun at someone. Cripes, if I can't have a little fun at someone elses expense what joy in life is there? Who cares about a little stereotyping? GET OVER IT!

Do gap toothed redneck hillbillies smokin' corncob pipes offend every white person born south of the Mason-Dixon?

Matt, look at your blog for a second. Look at post that you put "more care and study" about the OH JESUS animation by Marc M. you so praise as "hilarious" (which also used the "N" word, racially offensive?) and that he's "at the top of his game". Wouldn't someone find that cartoon a little offensive? Wouldn't someone may have a teensy-weensy tiny problem that they could find something like that insulting to their messiah? You obviously aren't offended by it and admitted that some people will be, but you posted it up anyway. Now here you are implying that John's the insensitive prick, John is the one that needs to be careful of what he posts on his blog, simply because he doesn't find the packet offensive at all but others do.

HYP-O-CRITE!

I gonna go out on a limb here. Maybe it's that you go to UF and it's your guys mission to make every Native American image deemed offensive so it would be illegal to display any and all images, that way FSU, your university's rival, would lose their Seminole mascot.

This drawing was so offensive that it degrades a race and culture, and you can't fathom thought that someone might not think so or care? Well Matt, welcome to the human race! And tell those classmates of yours to never join the real world, personally, I don't think they can handle it.

I saw someone once use the term "Chinks" or "Gooks" one time on your blog in refference to the Korean / Asian animation market. How does that make any of this disscussion right? By a bunch of hypocrits who hold so much animosity towards the Asian animation market.

That orange drink packet is not racist. That kind of stuff was prevalent in all kinds of stuff back then. PC hippieness didn't exist back then. I've seen you post the classic animation art of big lipped black ppl, and all kinds of stuff that was perfectly "legal" back then and shown in kids animation all the time. Don't listen to that PC drivel - it's a bunch of hypocrisy from you ppl as far as I'm concerned. Calling Koreans "Gooks" and Japanese "Japs" on a regular basis simply because your upset about how they dominate "your" market ... sheesh - get over yourselves.

You are not wrong or offensive and Royal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen is one of my absolute favorite R&S cartoons. I love that stupid song about meat and "Country full of trees". The South Park guys put tons of un-politicaly correct stuff (on purpose) in their cartoons all the time and I don't see any of you guys bitching about that.

jeesh - PCism ruined cartoons and it is one top reason that ruined your guy's market. Don't even start on wether an old packet of kool-aid is racist or not.

Animal Rights activists should be screaming at me. Actually I made this image at my new job - and it is being used on a poster sized flare (flyer). The customer requested it - and the icons I made to go with it are various squished animals. I make cartoon images for Pull Tab games for use in bars and casinos. I now draw a wide variety of stuff - from smexy girls to naked deer running thru the forest. Its very fun - it's not animation - it's just cartooning. But that is my calling I have realized now. And I get to draw un-PC stuff all the time now and it's great!

Ok, well...I'm not uptight about race stuff at all, but I feel like something is being missed here.

Whites being made fun of doesn't matter. Because whites haven't had the horrible atrocities happen to them (as a people) that native americans, blacks, etc. Same with the general "canadians" thing (btw one of my favorite Ren and Stimpy's...would love to know more about it someday on your blog.) Maybe it isn't "fair", but making fun of whites is pretty much free reign, because who cares?

But when you make fun of people such as say....native americans, and they are ravaged and murdered (you know the story) and then their image used to sell some american juice drink, THAT'S what makes it worse than say, a white person being made fun of to sell an american juice drink. There IS a difference...It seems more like a "fuck you" to the native americans, haha, now that we killed you all, we'll make fun of you on our products! If it was WHITE GRAPE JUICE and had a nerdy Caucasian business man on the cover, well, what are we making fun of? How successful and in power he is? So, go ahead, who cares.

The Injun thing doesn't bother me too much, and PERSONALLY I'm not very offended, but I just feel like this has not been addressed...

When it comes to race and stereotypes and offensive stuff, there's so many different layers to the arguments that it can go on and on forever. This is just one layer I thought should be noted.

This is why the majority of entertainment these days stinks. People are too afraid to go for it for fears of offending somebody.

People need to relax and laugh about it. Why does everything have to be PC? Why can't TV be just like real life? We all talk about things in real life in a non PC way but as soon as it's on TV is "Harumph, I am offended!!"

I just thought that there IS a difference of who gets made fun of, and the contexts of it. Whether it's a class, a race, anything. There's always lines that are crossed, and sometimes it's so subtle and so many shades of gray that something offensive to one person may not be to another. And a white person (or British people, etc) being made fun of just isn't the same as a collection of people who've been slaughtered, etc (even if some of their own did do the slaughtering, just like with any race.) Just the MERE FACT that it's an Indian on a silly American product makes it triple offensive, because of everything that happened. Maybe it's not right, or overly sensitive,, but it's true. In fact the more silly it is, the more derogatory some may see it. The argument is that it's so silly and cute and harmless, how can one be offensive, but that may be the very BASIS of why it IS offensive.

Matt's original post said he asked native americans (how did he find any?) if they found it offensive, and they did. Does that mean they're wrong? Do they have more "authority" on if it's offensive or not? I honestly don't know.

I'm not saying it point blank IS offensive, just that I don't think it's crazy for a native american to BE offended by it.

I repeat: I'm not politically correct, and my personal opinion of this isn't that harsh...But these are just thoughts I have on different points of view.

Hey John, you may think this is funny. Here is a brief story of being out to dinner with people who were WAY too politically correct.

We were at a diner and had an indian (as in, from India) waiter. I was out with my friend and his girlfriend, and all her girly friends. At one point someone wants more water, and asks,

"which one was our waiter?"

No one knows how to describe him. This one girl says "I think he's the one in the tiel apron"

My friend (who doesn't like this often pretentious and snotty girl..) yells out "TIEL? You mean GREEN?"

Everyone is struggling, "i think he was the younger guy..." "he had the black hair..." etc

I tried to read a bit of the above, I think my attention span can go so far sometimes, anyway.

I wouldn't think it was offensive in any sort of manner, though, forgive my opinions from someone younger, but it looks just like a little, silly, cute, happy caricature and it's own little color label to go with it.

I don't think they were trying to be racist or offensive in any kind of way or manner, just trying to associate one thing with another.

In forth grade, they took us to an indian herritage museum. They told us stuff in the same vein of Joe, and then showed us Bob Clampett's "Wagon Heels" on a big screen. They told us it was evil, but by the end kids were laughing so hard, they had to end the assembly.

heh heh, political correctness debate...cowboy and indian tv-shows,dress ups,comics etc used to be really popular with kids, thats why they chose to call the drink "injun orange" ,i bet if i had a trawl through the internet i could find a similar cowboy themed product: but im too lazy and this debate is too ridiculous.

Politically correct people are free to condemn the vast majority of humans who just act naturally. Shouldn't we be offended by them? Let's make laws against them

Amen, John.

That's what my Censor Monkeys are all about. They are exposing the real life "political correctness" mongers for the filthy hypocritical animals that they are. Every time some ass like Matt Blasi makes a big stink about something completely innocent being too racist or whatever, everyone should hold up a icture of one or all of my monkeys and taunt them with it until they run home crying and hopefully shut up forever. This should ESPECIALLY be done to the monkeys at WHV who mangled the latest Tom & Jerry release.

A few of the comments have been insightful. The rest are (par for course on the Internet) over-zealous, reactionary dribble. Mike Fontanelli and several others clearly don't understand the difference between a discussion and an argument. So, let's clarify a few things.

First, I asked for a clarification as to what John K meant by his statement: "This is considered offensive today. Insane or what?"

That clarification has still not been given.

Second, I asked: what is NOT offensive about it? This means that if you (John K and others) DO NOT think it is an offensive image, I'd like you to elaborate WHY. It also implies that if you DO think it's an offensive image, please explain why.

That should have tipped people off that I was attempting a discussion, not a flame war - that I am not so persoanlly offended as attempting to create a dialogue of WHY such an image might be considered offensive. But some people would rather jump on their keyboards and rattle off furious responses than contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion.

I wrote: "Because it IS offensive. It depicts a parody image of stereotypical Native Americans used to sell a ridiculous product in a humiliating context. What is NOT offensive about it?"

This is part personal opinion, part observation based on how this image is view in the context of our modern society. I believe it if offensive because it isn't simply an image of a Native American. It's an image of an orange Native American wearing ceremonial or traditional garb and decoration. It caricatures an element of Native American culture without consideration for how that culture uses, feels about, or interprets such imagery.

I then reinforced it with the following examples: "if you had an old-timey "black-faced" image on the wrapper and sold it as "Negro Nectar," people wouldn't hesitate to call it offensive. If you had a white face on it and called it "Cracker Cranberry," it would also be offensive."

Based on current American societal decorum, such examples would be considerd racist and/or offensive. Why? Is it that we're simply juvenille book-burners, anti-"barrels of fun" as Mike Fontanelli puts it? No. That's a simplistic explanation devoid of real intelligence.

This remains a point of discussion.

I understand that John K is not making a pointedly political statement here - he was simply showing us a piece of art in emphasize a point. I'm certainly not blaming John K or calling him a racist, and I'm not saying that offensive humor and elements of art should be subdued and done away with. To the contrary, as a poster noted, I'm a fan of Marc M.'s Sick Animation, a highly-offensive collection of art.

Jordan wrote: "But when you make fun of people such as say....native americans, and they are ravaged and murdered (you know the story) and then their image used to sell some american juice drink, THAT'S what makes it worse than say, a white person being made fun of to sell an american juice drink. There IS a difference...It seems more like a "fuck you" to the native americans, haha, now that we killed you all, we'll make fun of you on our products! If it was WHITE GRAPE JUICE and had a nerdy Caucasian business man on the cover, well, what are we making fun of? How successful and in power he is? So, go ahead, who cares."

This is an excellent point. There IS something most people have missed from this discussion. Perhaps its a capitalistic exploitation of ethnic imagery, perhaps it's simply that things have shifted in a modern context; what was once inoffensive is now offensive. My comment is not centered around capital (product) as Krieg stated.

John K. loves to talk about the terrific animation and art principles in the cartoon "Coal Black," and he's right - those principles are terrific! But it doesn't mean the film isn't offensive. It is.

John K wrote: "Indians murdered and tortured each other and made totem poles. Are the totem poles racist, therefore? Let's burn the last few and erase them from history."

That's a common argument made when people oppose affirmative action for blacks in the United States. 'Why should the government help them? Africans were enslaving each other before the Europeans go to them!'

True. But there is a world of difference between white European chattel slavery and what Africans did to each other. The two are incomparable.

John K wrote: "Cartoonists and comedians make fun of everything. That doesn't mean we are condemning whole groups of people every time we acknowledge obvious cultural traits.

This thread proves my point of everyday common insanities that we take for granted, like political "correctness"."

John, there's a fine line between acknowledging culture and mocking it. A very fine line. What you're offering is - and you have a bad habit of doing this - a broad generalization where culture, art, and license to interpret are given free reign to interact. I don't think you mean any harm, but that doesn't mean that it's harmless.

I've brought things like this up before and you've waived it away as "mysticism." Your refusal to actually investigate the finer points of your arguments weakens your emphasis that no harm is being done. If you're right, then why not really examine such facets of art-culture interaction? Why not consult outside data and scholarly sources?

Kenneth Clark's famous doll experiment is a great place to examine how images, merchandising, and culture interact in enormously harmful ways.

John K wrote: "Politically correct people are free to condemn the vast majority of humans who just act naturally. Shouldn't we be offended by them? Let's make laws against them."

Another broad generalization in which all "politically correct people" are misers, undermining your sense of fun, and threatening to make the world PG-13.

That's nonsense and you know it.

I'm not supporting censorship. My stance is this: before we jump to ANY conclusions about the effects of art of people, culture, etc., we should make an honest examination of things. IS an image offensive? If it's considered offensive, why? Are there arguments to be made on both sides?

I'm not saying that I, Matt Blasi, am right, nor am I simply trying to be contentious. I'm saying that the relationship between art, ethnicity, and culture - the line between offensive and inoffensive - is a fine line and one that requires more care than simply saying, "This is considered offensive now-a-days and that's nonsense."

I respect your work, John K. I respect your art and your incredible understanding of how to create, conceptualize, and invigorate art. But I'm not an animator and I'm not here (like some posters) to simply kiss behind. If I see that you've made a statement that seems wildly off-base, I call you on it in a respectfu manner (unlike many posters).

In portuguese indians are still called indians. It's not a bad word at all, they use it themselves, it's in the name of government organs dedicated to protect them. If you called an indian a native he'd probably laugh at you.

That said, i have no idea of why that drawing would be offensive. Can only white people be used in that manner? I wonder if in america people with freckles cry when they see frecled kids on cereal boxes.

Well I think this cartoon image is the LEAST offensive thing we've done to the native americans, but yeah it's offensive...but then again, so are ALL of my FAVORITE caricatures! So go fig.

BTW, this "Mike Fontanelli" character seems to really enjoy his sense of personal out-rage, possible just as much as the Matt Blasi fella. Nothing wrong with that of course...just hard to take people like that to seriously.

Jolly Olly Orange is offensive to the Fore Tribe of Papua, New Guinea - who are afflicted with Laughing Sickness. (Also to Viet Nam veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange during the war.)

In fact, the term "Kool Aid" itself is surely be offensive to people with HIV-related illnesses, and the spelling-challenged.

Lastly, Loudmouth Lime must certainly be offensive to Matt Blasi - and other humorless, hypersensitive, pro-censorship, "politically correct" Thought Police-types who have nothing better to do than write indignant, self-righteous letters to cartoonists about the outrageous effrontery of long-defunct soft drink packets.

Bloo bloo bloo. Maybe I'll care about the oh-so omnipresent PC Police when the good ole' persecuted majority stops hanging nooses from trees as "pranks". Or breaking a young black woman's wrist for dropping a piece of cake on the ground. Or accusing all instances of someone not like them on television as "tokenism".

kilted yaksmen is a bad example... it wasnt making a parody of a particular RACE of people. Canadian isnt necessarily a RACE. Just like American isnt a RACE. More like a country of origin.

When someone asks you what your nationality is i doubt you go "Canadian".

This whole thing is in a gray area.

...regardless, I DIG the illustration. doesnt make me feel outraged. if it were a dude in black face selling "negro nectar" like that one dude (hilariously) added earlier... ahaha, it would make me mad for a split second until my art-fag brain kicked in and critiqued the actual art, then if the chit tasted awesome i probably would buy a case of em and hand em out as gifts and whatnot.

Aaron - What I find offensive are people (like Mike) who tell American Indians that they have no right to be offended.

I'm not sure that's what he meant.

If something offends people, good! They should be offended, and they have every right to say they're offended. Mike also has the right to tell them to cry him a river, build a bridge, and get over it ya bunch of cry babies.

What gets on my nerve is people who believe they have a right not to be offended. If we did have the right to not to be offended, I wouldn't have any steak for dinner, because some people are offended at the thought of others eating meat. You wouldn't be typing on this blog because there are people who are opposed to new technology. If we did have this right, then I would have been arrested today for flipping off this jerk-wad tail-gating me, if he so happened to have found my statment towards his driving abilities offensive.

It's offensive because we Americans have a HUGE guilt complexes about certain cultures and races that were treated horribly back in the day that are now constantly reminding us of the fact (Although, for whatever reason, not the Italians and Irish).

Kind of like when, in a marriage, the husband cheats with his secretary for a while, gets caught, slowly absolves himself over a long period of time, and still loses every major argument over the course of the remaining 50-or-so years of being together because the wife will always use that incident as a trump card and there's not much the husband can do about it.

I was thinking about this today: WHY are the Chinese/Japanese Porky Pig caricatures so horribly offensive that they can't ever be shown again, and yet the goddamned Swedish Chef was one of the most cute, hilarious mainstays of the Muppets, made by the happiest hippie of them all?

Ching Chong vs. Ur Verrgen du Blurrhog.

We didn't force the Swedes to build our country and make us meatballs for dinner in the process. So we don't feel guilty about poking fun at them. Same with Canadians.

It's all in good fun. None of it should matter. Everyone thinks Americans invented racism, so we carry that lonely Catholic Self-guilt with us too.It's curious and interesting. Course we'll always have the Washington Redskins and Mrs. Butterworth.

In Spain people couldn't care less about these things, I have always found all this pretty strange.

There are some things I don't consider racist at all, then there are other things that are racist but they should be put in context. If I remember it well there is a gag about killing "japs" in Coal Black, this is more racist than the black caricatures. But there was a war going on, so it's understandable.

I can't understand how somebody could censore a fantastic movie or cartoon even if it racist. And half of the time it is not really racist. It may be stereotypical, but it's almost impossible to avoid. If you want a character to look like a black, indian, chinese you have to add some stereotypical black, indian, chinese traits. Otherwise the result is a very bland caricature, the kind of character they would draw in Rocket Power.

But even if something is racist but it is also a masterpiece, nobody should censore it. People can buy D. W. Griffith's Birth Of A Nation cause it is considered a great film, but when I bought a Tex Avery COMPLETE dvd collection in France there were some shorts missing. Why? Cause cartoons are considered for kids. If you want to protect the kids, then cut the sexual aspects as well and the violence, cut everything and don't let anybody see Tex Avery's cartoons anymore. By this logic cartoons would be really, really boring unless they were aimed especifically to adults.

That said, I wouldn't know what to say if I met a black person who were actually offended by, say, the caricatures in Coal Black. Anybody has had this kind of experience? Most of the time I think it's the white people assuming other people is gonna be offended. That happened with the whole Speedy Gonzales thing. Mexican people said they loved the character.

I know people in Congo have protested recently about the belgian comic book Tintin in Congo, but I think that comic includes real racist content in the way the characters treat the black people, I don't think they would be offended if there were only big lips and black faces.

Reminds me of the fact that networks don't even air "Injun Trouble" anymore. It's amazing how a how a word and a smiling orange wearing some Indian headress can represent an offensive stereotype, just like with big lips (and the stereotypical accent).

Even though the link is more about cryptozoology, it has some background info on "injun." http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/injun-devils/

I'd like to thank all the Caucasians that are offended on me and my brethren's behalf. You take offense so we don't have to.

Please think about whether you truly are actually, emotionally and psychologically hurt or whether you're just saying you're offended because that's what you've been told to think is the right way to feel.

It's a round orange with a feather and face paint... I don't see him raping any white women or scalping the heads of defeated calvary soldiers. It's just a cute little character selling you some powdered sugar water. It's more silly than anything.

I liked it when Indians were portrayed on TV and in movies by the likes of Edward Everett Horton and Joey Bishop. Likewise, I liked to see cartoon natives on "George of the Jungle" that sounded like Phil Silvers. Back then it was all just funny - nobody was uptight about it like they are today.

I guess all these politically correct types want all indi... I mean, "Native Americans" to be as oh so noble and devoid of personality and visual interest as "Pocahontas" and her clan. Interesting that the white British villain and his servant were allowed to be more broadly caricatured in that film. A double standard perhaps? Hmmm....

I'm 1/8th-plus American Indian (father's mother's mother was full blooded Cherokee, father's father was some part Blackfoot but died before accurately conveying how much; not Native American because archaeological evidence indicates the first people in North America were completely wiped out by later immigrants, and anyone born here seems just as native to me as anyone else born here), and my thought is that it's the political entities that claim to be the entirety of American Indian-ness who make this a problem because they are premised on being super serious (plus generic political entities premised on being super serious about all racial identities).

I hear no special negative resonance in the word "injun" (perhaps the hyper formal douche bags spoken of above are to blame; if someone's going to call them a name based on the misapprehension of what continent they've landed on, then damn it they're going to pronounce it clearly), and to the best of my recollection there's no racial association between American Indians and the color orange. I also recall no stereotyping of Indians as gigantically fat. There doesn't seem to be any more stereotyping here than there is on the Quaker Oats box or on a bag of Robin Hood flour. Or that brand of cigarettes that used to use Puritans as their advertising spokespeople... Maybe people just hate the UPA style...

American Indians were on the receiving end of terrible subjugation. Portraying a modern Indian as speaking in halting half English, wearing a feather in his hair on the street, or living in a teepee in Chicago would be offensive stereotyping in something claiming to depict life as it is now. But presenting an archetype of a bygone people (and the whole point of saying "that's not who we are" is that the image is a caricature of people who are no more; and if they never existed at all, then why are they complaining?) in stylized cartoon modern style seems pretty neutral to me. American Indians who stayed on the reservations lived terrible lives until casinos 20 years ago (and non casino reservations are still just as terrible it seems), but as a race they have been far freer to assimilate into white society than people of African extraction. The anti-miscegenation laws of the US excepted the descendants of John Smith and Pocahontas, and there's more than one example in this thread of part-Indians (people identify me as white based on how I look; they laugh at my claims of multi-raciality because a touch of Indian doesn't seem to count as "not white" to most people in America).

I think maybe it's Vietnam vets who would be offended by something that sounds like Agent Orange, but that's just a happenstance as this seems to pre-date agent orange (like Navajo swastikas pre-date the Nazis)...

<< Whites being made fun of doesn't matter. Because whites haven't had the horrible atrocities happen to them (as a people) that native americans, blacks, etc. >>

That's reverse discrimination.

People just need to grow some balls and stop acting like everyone is out to bully them.

By the way, tell that to all the millions of whites who were slaves to Muslims in North Africa during the 16th-18th century.

And the wonderful serfdoms of the middle ages. Or whites selling white slaves during the very early colonial america (when incoming black slaves were considered incredibly valuable, while white slaves were "expendable.")

Every race has been treated terribly by another race in one way or another in history,so why do we keep blaming people today who had nothing to do with the actions of people from the past?

Where the hell are Wacky Packages?Why not have a parade of ethnicity so to speak, and challenge all of us taking the course to do an ethnic parody in good taste -you post 'em and see if we can't help everybody lighten up.

Back in 1964 it was rough for us redheads when Freckle Face Strawberry came out, but I sure drank alot of the stuff! Injun Orange and Chinese Cherry eventually changed names, but not the strawberry. What's up with that?

Personally speaking, I'm a little more offended by the Cleveland Indians mascot than the smiley-faced orange. If it was brown or tan and the team were called the Cleveland Blacks or the Cleveland Latins, more people would be insensed.

I also love it when white folks get all "hey, nobody gets made fun of more than white guys," using it as an excuse for their own racism.

When a caricature on a product becomes the most frequent representation of an ethnic group that a child ever encounters, then it's probably a bad idea. I understand that the drawing is perhaps not inherently derogatory, but when you give a silly drawing like that the full force of constant TV exposure and a multi million dollar ad campaign, it crowds out all other intelligent discussion of what these people might be about for the child audience. And since these are real people that we live with in our country and not just mythical creatures created for movies, they should have a chance of at least not being drowned out by the dumbness of some ad man who couldn't think of anything else to rhyme with "orange". It's not even a good rhyme. And Indians aren't orange. The frito bandito posed a similar problem. Cute, but I remember growing up during that ad campaign and that character was about 95% of what me and my friends "knew" about mexicans.

Caricatures of white people are not a genuine counterbalance, since the typical white child (or any color really) will have many opportunities to experience what white people are all about besides the misrepresentations they may encounter in the media.

Ok, like Matt, I wasn't necessarily trying to outright proclaim this, but touch on the IDEA of it and think about it.

I'm not afraid to admit that I haven't even made up my mind on all this stuff yet. It's complicated and I think about it a lot. Still young and all.

However I do think, when you are living in modern society, there's a difference between white people being enslaved in the 16-18th century, and Black people being enslaved and then repressed only a handful of decades ago...When I look around the city, 99% of the homeless people are black. Are there reasons? Of course. Do I know the intricacies why? Well...no. I'm not that smart. But there IS a reason. But look around you...You can't put whites and blacks (or indians) in equal territory THESE DAYS when it comes to this stuff.

I wasn't blaming anybody for anything, but LIKE IT OR NOT, whether it's FAIR OR NOT, I was saying this is why it's "ok" to make fun of whites. And on a personal level, I think it's ok to make fun of everyone. That's all me and my friends do. I'm talking about societal terms here, not my own life or sense of humor.

And honestly, going by specifically American history, give me a break...I'm sure whites were repressed or enslaved in some circumstances, but it's NOTHING compared to blacks or Indians. Like Chris Rock (another mention!) says, "when was the last time you met TWO Indians?"

Have you noticed the fact that "Goofy Grape" wears a Napoleon Bonaparte hat, thus implying he's insane because he thinks he's Napoleon? Obviously this Goofy Grape fellow is a slanderous depiction of the good citizens of France!

It's pretty offensive, to me anyway, because those ideas aren't pillsbury's to exploit to make a buck. I'm in John K's camp in the sense that I think artists and comedians should have license to express themselves, regardless of whether people are offended by their art. However, this is hardly art, it's straight up capitalism.When money is involved in the equation, the question becomes about power relationships. Is it cool that an oppressor uses the likeness of the oppressed to pitch drink mix? No, that's not cool at all, because it belittles the importance of the culture. It's not somebody trying to entertain or provoke thought, it's a soulless corporation using whatever methods necessary to raise the bottom line. It brings the material into an entirely different, and unsavory, realm. Worst of all, it blurs the line between what is art and what is real. You might think that's not a big deal, but in a society where racism is still alive and kicking, it's dangerous.Even beyond that, the likeness is mine. As a native american, I want to make fun of native americans without competition. What I don't want is some corporate jerk to illustrate his wares with a piece of my family's history. It's not somebody else's to make money off of. What I'm saying is this: It's offensive because it's unfair to Native Americans, unfair to me even, for somebody else to co-opt my cultural heritage for monetary gain. If anybody's going to be doing the co-opting, it had better be me. So if John K, or any other animator or comedian, wants to make a funny cartoon or joke about indians, that's fine with me. Just don't stick it on a cereal box.

Listen: images and words only have as much power over you as you allow them. This isn't a matter of sticks and stones, but embracing and taking charge of such words and images so that they are no longer hurtful. Otherwise, your so called perceived enemies have won. It's why I can watch old time cartoons without getting outraged or offended. At least once a day, I could take offense, if I chose, at some perceived slur against all my ethnic heritages or belief systems - but I am a grown up now. Is the powdered drink package offensive? I'm a quarter Leni-Lenape, so that part of me says you can't make fun of the Seminoles enough, especially since they just closed the best Hard Rock Cafe in Texas. I'm mean c'mon, this tribe had Negro slaves back in the day. I'm gonna sympathize with these millionaires? I don' think so! OTOH, any sane aboriginal American wouldn't care about this image a whit because this kind of "racial stereotyping" used in advertising is remarkably innocuous. Look that up smart guy, you're a college boy. If I was a French Canadian settler (oh, er, ah, um, intruder)from the 16th century, I'd scalp you. Instead, I'm a multi-ethnic (1/4 Leni Lenape, 1/4 Bavarian, 1/4 Alsation-Irish [not a dog, funny people], 1/4 Scot) American citizen with a rich cultural background and heritage living in the 21rst Century, so I'll make fun of you for being a young hothead with no sense of balance.

The kind of idiot no one wants to be around at parties. You must be barrels of fun.

Go home and burn some books until you feel better - you seem the type. Better yet, go look up the word "irony" in a dictionary, and get back to me.

In the mean time, grow up, jackass."

This is a direct, personal attack. I've never met Mike, nor have I ever, prior to his posting this message, attempted any communication with him. In fact, the content of my original post was directed at John K and others not him.

My point is, why are comments like this (and numerous others similar in tone) allowed to be posted? Comments like this help to create a hostile, antagonistic environment where flame wars and other ridiculously rude behavior become are provoked.

Comments like this reflect poorly on the site and on John K, especially if he's the one moderating the comments. This creates an atmosphere where immature Internet behavior is allowed. If the goal is to create a complete free-speech zone where anyone can say anything, even if it's an unprovoked personal attack, well, consider it a success. But I'd like to ask that in order for discussions to be kept civil that Mike F's brand of flaming be disallowed.

If this is offensive then why didn't Disney ever take Peter Pan off the market? They certainly took Song Of The South off the market which proves that they are very sensitive to this kind of thing. Peter Pan was just released in a new special edition.

When a drink is produced in a wide range of racial stereotypes AS THIS ONE WAS isn't it just being inclusive?

Woah!!! People are really offended by this??? I'll set the record straight! Im an enrolled member of the Paiute-Shoshone Indian Tribe of the Owens Valley and I find nothing wrong with this image at all. If anything its an image of an Indian smiling unlike all the Hollywood crap they give us where we all are Stoic looking, or even worse the single tear running down our face.

Where is the artist or even this company trying to be racist? Last time I looked, and maybe John could back me up on this, I'm not orange, and I don't wear feathers in my hair.

I'm actually curious to how people here would design an Indian character being completely "PC"???Let's see it People!!!

-Joe

P.S

Sorry I posted so late John but I was actually at a Pow Wow this afternoon in San Diego, and that's not a lie.

I'm offended he thinks it's a "ridiculous product". It's a delicious product. Cowboys and Injuns alike can be proud.

Everyone loves comparing things to the "N-word", well if you love the word so much why don't you marry it and f*ck it. Self censored!

I'm glad that the John K. blog readers have such high regards for race issues. This is looking like Eddie's blog responses. You can debate Race and Evolution amongst the cartoonist who brought us "Log", and the lonesome group who read their respective blogs on a daily basis. Maybe politics next and sexism.

I'm black, a Canuck, at odds with John's views on rap music, and I still come here despite seeing stills from Coal Black posted frequently. Sure, I bristle at 'em a little, but I know I don't embody any stereotypes that might be put forth by those images, so I move on. There are other things more worthy of being angry about.

Well i'm Ukrainian and i think that the cossack cranberry is Hilarious i would love to try some!

Personally i feel honored anytime i see someone poking fun at my heritage ... maybe this isn't fair because it doesn't happen that often or else nobody gets it or even realizes its a joke. i'd be pretty happy if somebody thought highly enough of me to slap a charicature of my face on a pack of drink mix and sell it

I guess i just think its funny to be able to personnally connect with a joke. Also its hard to take offense to something that isn't even directed at me personally... despite the fact i have ukrainian heritage i have never lived in ukraine and certainly can't claim the honor of being called a cossack!

Moral of the story if you can't laugh at yourself who can you laugh at!

I remember watching "The Royal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen" when I was in Elementary school, and it was the first, and last, R & S epidsode I've seen at the time, because both of my sisters couldn't stand watching one second of it. In due course, they had always hidden the remote when the show was comming around it's air time.

"I did make fun of my Canadian culture a few times though and don't remember any Canadians being offended by "The Royal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen".

Add me to that list, John; when I had showed that ep. to one of my friends, we both couldn't stop laughing at the following line: "The Royal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen's famous motto is: “We always get our … butts kicked!” .

I had always felt that the Ep. had a similar feel to expeditions sent out to search for oil, and with Canada having rich oil reserves in Northern Alberta, it isn't surprising.

The best part of the episode was when the commander sends the boys out on their difficult journey, while the rest of the Yaksmen have “the shame of remaining here with the women”. “Those poor men,” said Stimpy, “isn't it a pity, Ren?”

No they don't. Comments reflect on the person who said them. Everyone's comments have their name at the top. We're all grown-ups who take responsibility for ourselves.

Quite frankly, your comments reflect on you... Taking the position that an orange ball with a couple of stripes on its face and a feather on top is morally offensive is a pretty ludicrous concept. With all the things that really matter in this world, "Injun Orange" doesn't add up to a hill of beans.

Mike is expressing understandable frustration from having to defend an argument that is self-evident against someone who is in love with the sound of his own words. If you're carrying on this endless stream of pointless argumentativeness for the sake of entertainment value, it ain't working. If you were a little more consise, more intellectually honest, and stuck to the point more, people might actually read your comments past the first couple of lines.

[...why are comments like this (and numerous others similar in tone) allowed to be posted?...][...I'd like to ask that in order for discussions to be kept civil that Mike F's brand of flaming be disallowed...]

Dear Mr. Blasi,

Please direct your attention to the part of my comment which states:

"...Go home and burn some books until you feel better - you seem the type."

Well - voila! I pegged you immediately as an enemy of free speech. Please allow me to thank you for the vindication.

Let's lay our cards on the table, shall we, Matt? Sensitivity to other people's feelings actually has nothing to do with it - (as T.E.B. clearly pointed out for the whole world to see in his excellent comment, which I would invite everyone here to kindly re-read.)

All you really want to do is censor free expression, isn't that right? Please forgive me when I say that I knew it all the time. Where I work, your type is a dime a dozen.

The sad part is, you guys always seem to get your way, don't you?

After years of collectors fighting for it, emailing studios, making appeals, etc. - Golden Age comedy and classic cartoon DVDs are FINALLY beginning to be released complete, with uncensored content, as the original filmmakers intended for them to be seen.

But you'll find a way to put a stop to that, won't you, Matt?

You're the reason television is no longer worth watching. You're the reason there hasn't been an honest comedy program in years.

It would seem that I was being kind when I called you an "idiot". Idiots can't help being what they are. But you can. You're just a hypocrite and a phony - a vastly more serious offense.

Please consider: who the hell are YOU to determine what is and isn't offensive to an entire race of people?

Native Americans have no sense of humor, apparently? Who told you that?We've heard from several Native Americans here. They're NOT offended - and they gave excellent, highly specific reasons why not. That would seem to settle the matter, at least for now.

But here you are, still crying about it.

Perhaps you think it's your duty to explain to them why they SHOULD be offended? Maybe you feel it's your responsibility to be offended FOR them? If that isn't the most smug, pompous, condescending, patronizing attitude - I don't know what is.

And after more than 80 comments - here you are, STILL screaming that others should be silenced. Who are you to demand that the comments on someone else's blog be "disallowed"? Who died and made you queen?

Man, I swear, these are from a time where people weren't offended easily or were such sensitive weenies. Everybody hated everybody and that was that. All who are offended are really offended because they have no sense of humor or taste. BAD taste is better than no taste. I'm sure even the natives laugh their ass off because the picture so horribly done. If everyone was a sensitive weenie (hah, bad taste for ya, and both puns intended) ther'd be no such thing as humor. Matt Blasi, you are a tard.